The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1887-12-20

rather than that of the United States of
America. 10 the latter, no Cabinet, as of
constitutional right, sits with and as part
of the Legislature or Congress. The Execu-
tive is not represented In any respect In the
Legislative Department. In this country as
in England the Cabinet forms part OF the
Legislature and Is responsible TO it. Here
the Cabinet is not elective, but our present
fundamental law expressly makes the Cabi-
net responsible TO the House, and if not in ac-
cord, the King must remove them upon a vote
of want of confidence. In England the Cabi-
net is composed of elective members of the
Parliament, at least as to a portion of them.
No Cabinet in the United States can be re-
moved by the law.making power. Here and
in the British Empire, the Cabinets are made
and unmade by the Legislature.
The veto power is given by the cons,itu-
tions of each of the United States to the
Governors and by that of the Federal Union
to the President. That power is frequently
exercised. 1t can be overcome by two
thirds vote of the Legislature, and if such
vote cannot be obtained and the veto power
Is exercised contrary to public policy, the
people simply wait for 4 short term until
the expiration of the term of Office of the
President or Governor when another man Is
elected whose views are in accord with such
policy. But no such relief can be had in
constitutional monarchy, the sovereign
reigns till death ensues and in some senses
this might be called forever. In England
the veto power may be said to exist, as one
of the prerogatives of the Crown, but 1t has
not been exercised since 1907 during the
reign of Queen Anne and in fact the power
is obsolete. No sovereign of En- land would
dare to nullify the act of the Parliament.
1t will not and cannot be done so long as the
principle of responsibility exists. This prIn-
ciple is what our Constitution establishes.
Ii is for this that the country arose as one
La llalf har
ton of these principles in the grant of the
new Constitution.
Without a review of the growth of this
principle of responsible government, we now
come to the question of what is the proper
construction of our Constitution. Does It
not appear to conflict in any of its clauses?
The rule of construction must be so exer-
cised as to give force 20 all of Its points if
possible. If this requires the limitation of
any part, such limitation will be placed upon
such part IN order that 1t may have effect. If
parts are totally repugnant, the clauses last
IN time and place will control. These laws
are recognized IN England and the United
States and are admirably laid down IN
CooleY's Constitutional Limitations p. II,
etc. With these rules in view, we find that
the act of Withholding of assent to bill by
the King can be performed by and with the
advice and consent of the Cabinet, and that
without such advice and consent such act
cannot be exercised without violence to the
letter and spirit of the Constitution If the
King can by his acts without the advice of
his Cabinet which is responsible, or con-
trary TO such advice, render null the act
/ of the Legislature, then we return to the con-
dition from which We escaped in July last
and all of our trouble returns to us again.
If our Constitution means anything; If re-
sponsible government Is not deluslon: If
we gained anything by our new system, 1t is
/ that fha KING hv and with the advice
and consent of the Cabinet, and for these
reasons ] introduced the resolution and ad-
vocate its passage.
Rep. Paehaole saw nothing in the Consti-
tuition requiring the Kings veto to be coun-
tersigned by one of his Ministers. He was of
opinion that the King had complied with the
Constitution and that the Ministers were to
blame.
Noble Widemann said the introducer of
the resolution had evidently convinced him
self that his views were correct. But he had
failed to convince him, the speaker. The
veto was judicial act. Article Il was in
tended for executive and not for judicial acts.
This resolution is an uncertain solution of
the question. When they get the Supreme
Court decision, We shall have full solution
of the question.
Rep. Paehaole opposed the resolu-
ton.
Noble ToEnsend SAID All political power
emanates from the people. This is the
Anglo-Saxon idea. 1t is the idea which first
developed into political liberty in England.
1t is the idea which animated the revolution
airy Fathers IN America. 1t Is the idea which
led to the downfall of the despotism of the
Bourbons of France. 1t Is the idea which
has been shaking all Europe periodically for
generations. 1t is the idea which aroused
unbOunded enthusiasm IN the greatest
peoples meeting ever held in these Islands,
on the Both day of last June. This idea is
prevailing and has been prevailing over all
opposing ideas for ages. Sometimes 1t pre-
walls quietly, and sometimes amid cOmmo-
ton, as when an unwilling King signed the
first great Charter of English liberty at
Ruunymede In form King John granted
this measure of liberty to the people. In re-
atty he signed the Charter as it was pre-
sented 10 him, and that to save his throne, if
not to save his life. In early days the oppo-
site feudal idea, that all political power
emanates from the throne, was acknowledged
as the foundation of the Government of
these Islands. That theory of utter irrespOn-
sibility to the people developed the state of
affairs which prevailed here just before the
memorable mass meeting. Then the people
arose in their might and put down that state
of affairs They not only demanded that in
competent and bad officials be dismissed, but
they struck deep ut the root of the evil.
They demanded that the whole system be
changed from its very foundation. They
demanded of the King for their request was
nothing less than a demand), ~ That he
will not in the future interfere either direct
ly or indirectly with the election of repre-
sentatives. p That he will not interfere
with or attempt to unduly influence legisla-
ton or Legislators. 81 That he will not in
terfere with the constitutional administra-
ton of his Cabinet" On the first day of
July His Majesty answered the people, grant
ing all that they asked. He consented also,
specifically, to a new Constitution. And
why did the people want new Constitution?
They wanted the principles which they had
demanded so earnestly incorporated into the
organic law of the land. We all remember
What en- n yas splayed on that occa-
sion. I lie me- sxtrayagant speeches
were APP I'D as sPeeC les were never before
applaud IN this land
The Constitution was promised and the
excitement subsidej omewhat. But we
remember with what sep interest all await
ed the appearance If lat document. 1t is
an open secret that the work of framing the
Constitution was given } some of our wisest
and shrswdest men CD embody in it the
principles which the T5)ple had commended